David Womby Posted April 4, 2020 Author Share Posted April 4, 2020 1 hour ago, general melchett said: Hope this helps. Melchie Thank you, yes. Another set of eyes taking a fresh look does help. Much appreciated. David 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Swindell Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 5 hours ago, general melchett said: Also, a bit of a giveaway of an increase is the difference between the distance of the trailing edge of the nose-gear bay door and the leading edge of the intake, with the NA.39 (XK486, first pre-production aircraft) being almost in line, vertically speaking. Interestingly, it would seem that the vertical line between the rear of the door and the angled central canopy 'bar' is the same on both aircraft leading to the conclusion that the intake 'cones' were indeed of different length (the roundel having been repositioned back slightly on the production S.1 giving the illusion of a similar distance between it and the intake lip). Hope this helps. Melchie Thannks for posting those photos General I'm not convinced there is a difference in intake length illustrated here, I'm fairly sure it shows a fuselage extension. The cockpit, nosewheel leg and nosewheel door are all in the same relative position to each other in both photographs. The position of the intake relative to the aft edge of the nosewheel door and rear ejection seat could be interpreted as either the intake being shorter or the whole cockpit and nosegear bay moving forwards. One datum not previously discusssed but is visible here is the relationship between the forward end of the bomb bay and the aft end of the canopy - there appears to me to be roughly twice the distance between these two points on the S1 compared to XK486, which points towards the cockpit being moved forward (together with the rest of the forward fuselage) rather than the intake being shorter. One frequently published measurement which if known for both could prove or disprove this is the wheelbase, if the later preproduction NA39's had an extension fitted in the fuselage behind the cockpit the wheelbase will be a correspondingly greater measurement for these and subsequent Buccaneers compared to the first preproduction examples. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
general melchett Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 (edited) Good point with the difference between the forward end of the bomb bay and the canopy, I think you're right Dave, it does point to the 13'' extended fuselage mentioned in the Allward book. Also from the same book and while hardly definitive, this comparison drawing of the first three development aircraft and 4th/5th v the 6th/7th is interesting and illustrates the fuselage extension. Quote One frequently published measurement which if known for both could prove or disprove this is the wheelbase, if the later preproduction NA39's had an extension fitted in the fuselage behind the cockpit the wheelbase will be a correspondingly greater measurement for these and subsequent Buccaneers compared to the first preproduction examples. For that, the answer would lie with XK488, the third pre-production aircraft. understandably not accessible at the moment. Edited April 4, 2020 by general melchett 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 So is there a 13" accountable in the station drawings? Or less plus the length of the radar nose? John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Womby Posted April 4, 2020 Author Share Posted April 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, canberra kid said: So is there a 13" accountable in the station drawings? Or less plus the length of the radar nose? John It must be 13" in the fuselage insert and the rest of the overall length gain must be in the longer radome. ~10" on the radome length? David 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John R Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 (edited) I have just revisted Davids post #42 and if you line up the fuselages so that the main gear doors are aligned then the wing root and intakes also line up whilst the front fuselage, canopy and nose gear are moved forward about the amount we suspect. The black lines are David's, the red ones are mine. John Edited April 4, 2020 by John R error corrected 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Ranger Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 1 hour ago, David Womby said: It must be 13" in the fuselage insert and the rest of the overall length gain must be in the longer radome. ~10" on the radome length? David I think you've hit on the answer. If we could just locate station diagrams for both the NA.39 and the S.1, they would confirm any differences. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John R Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 The perils of perspective. The forward fuselages correlate with our thoughts...but look at the back ends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Womby Posted April 4, 2020 Author Share Posted April 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, John R said: The perils of perspective. The forward fuselages correlate with our thoughts...but look at the back ends I think the BW pic of XK486 is not shown in the correct ratio - it looks too fat/tall for the length. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John R Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 Pedant - It was the length we were interested in! Does this look better? I squashed it and the white Bucc until the wheels were round and the white squares square. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Womby Posted April 4, 2020 Author Share Posted April 4, 2020 Much better, John! David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Ranger Posted April 4, 2020 Share Posted April 4, 2020 1 hour ago, David Womby said: I think the BW pic of XK486 is not shown in the correct ratio - it looks too fat/tall for the length. David And its airbrakes are open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 I've found this in RAF Flying Review, I had to photograph it as it's a bound copy and I didn't want to damage the spine. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 I don't recall seeing this anywhere here, but if the airframe has been designed to fit into the lifts, and the fuselage has been lengthened, then there must also be a movement of the hinge point on the nose. Assuming, as seems reasonable, that this couldn't have been done on the tail. Apologies if it has been mentioned, but there seems to have been little comment on the photographs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Ranger Posted April 5, 2020 Share Posted April 5, 2020 9 hours ago, canberra kid said: I've found this in RAF Flying Review, I had to photograph it as it's a bound copy and I didn't want to damage the spine. John What issue is this in? I think I have a loose copy somewhere, in which case I can scan it. I certainly looks familiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 On 4/5/2020 at 11:11 PM, Space Ranger said: What issue is this in? I think I have a loose copy somewhere, in which case I can scan it. I certainly looks familiar. Sorry, couldn't find it yesterday, but I have now. April 1960, exactly 60 years ago, I was a month old! Vol.XV No.8 page 24. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Ranger Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 45 minutes ago, canberra kid said: Sorry, couldn't find it yesterday, but I have now. April 1960, exactly 60 years ago, I was a month old! Vol.XV No.8 page 24. John I think I have that issue, but it may be in the secure undisclosed location where most of my stash is cached. If I can break quarantine, I'll try to recover it and scan those pages. (I was 13 1/2 years old in April 1960!) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Space Ranger said: (I was 13 1/2 years old in April 1960!) Vintage 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Ranger Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, canberra kid said: Vintage And "classic"! On another note, I contacted BAE Systems Heritage asking if they have in their archives the fuselage and wing station diagrams for the NA.39, explaining that I am trying to document the physical changes in the airframe from prototypes to Buccaneer S.1 production. This was the response: "I am afraid that we are not permitted by order of our Board of Directors to issue any form of data or technical information other than to Civil Aviation Authority (or national equivalents) organisations or to owner operators of specific aircraft. "I am sorry we cannot assist further on this occasion." Very unhelpful, those Directors. Edited April 7, 2020 by Space Ranger Additional matter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCrisps Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 50 minutes ago, Space Ranger said: "I am afraid that we are not permitted by order of our Board of Directors to issue any form of data or technical information other than to Civil Aviation Authority (or national equivalents) organisations or to owner operators of specific aircraft. I've had that reply from them before too. It's a pity - imagine the amount of information that must be squirreled away in their archives! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Ranger Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, ChocolateCrisps said: I've had that reply from them before too. It's a pity - imagine the amount of information that must be squirreled away in their archives! Their position is probably based on advice from their lawyers so as to avoid any kind of liability. But you're right; it is a pity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Womby Posted April 7, 2020 Author Share Posted April 7, 2020 (edited) I'm glad we seem to have stopped the 'I was xx years old in 1960' posts. Too depressing for me. I have proceeded 'adjusting' my old Airfix NA39 to make it closer to what I think XK486 was like based on removing 13" aft of the cockpit and shortening the nose. I've also spent a lot of time improving the intakes but you can't tell that in this pic. The nosecone is still being shaped and the cockpit hasn't been reattached to the main fuselage yet but here's a glimpse of how it will look. The nose probe is still a work in progress and not glued on yet either. My apologies for my messy bench. It's always like that no matter how hard I try to be tidy! David Edited April 7, 2020 by David Womby 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted April 7, 2020 Share Posted April 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, David Womby said: I'm glad we seem to have stopped the 'I was xx years old in 1960' posts. Too depressing for me. I have proceeded 'adjusting' my old Airfix NA39 to make it closer to what I think XK486 was like based on removing 13" aft of the cockpit and shortening the nose. I've also spent a lot of time improving the intakes but you can't tell that in this pic. The nosecone is still being shaped and the cockpit hasn't been reattached to the main fuselage yet but here's a glimpse of how it will look. The nose probe is still a work in progress and not glued on yet either. My apologies for my messy bench. It's always like that no matter how hard I try to be tidy! David That looks good to me David. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Ranger Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 I sent this inquiry to the Fleet Air Arm Museum: "Do you have any material in your archives that would help document the changes in fuselage length(s) between the NA.39 prototypes and the production Buccaneer S.1? A station diagram for the NA.39 would be helpful, assuming one exists." This was the not unexpected reply: "Thank you for your email enquiry. The Fleet Air Arm Museum is now closed due to the COVID-19 outbreak. This email inbox will be checked periodically but there will be a delay before you receive a reply. If you have a history or archive question, it is unlikely we will be able to help you at this time. Please email us again later in the year when things have returned to normal." In the meantime, I have found a source of digital manuals for the Buccaneer S.1 and have placed an order for same. They may contain clues. I will post here as soon as I have found anything of interest in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted April 9, 2020 Share Posted April 9, 2020 19 minutes ago, Space Ranger said: In the meantime, I have found a source of digital manuals for the Buccaneer S.1 and have placed an order for same. They may contain clues. I will post here as soon as I have found anything of interest in them. I have those, and I can't see anything that pertains to the length change, I wouldn't expect them to really as the production S.1 is a different aircraft to the NA.39 prototypes. Like I mentioned earlier, I have seen one of the Flight articles from the time mention that there was a fuselage length change in the NA.39s, but don't which issue it was in. I think the surest way to confirm the dimensions of the changes, and where they apply, is to literally measure XK488. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now